Page 1 of 16 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 228

Thread: What was the point of Hitler's project?

  1. #1
    Regular
    Join Date
    17 Sep 08
    Posts
    53

    What was the point of Hitler's project?

    I am basing this thread inspired mainly by the book "wages of destruction".

    Adam tooze had argued Germany didn't have the size, population and the potential market of soviet Russia and USA.

    his lebensraum project was an attempt to destroy Russia(populated by slavs)),take lands "which would be better used by Aryans" and match the growing potential of USA which does not need an empire like britain.

    “The originality of National Socialism was that rather than meekly accepting a place for Germany within a global economic order dominated by the affluent English speaking countries, Hitler sought to mobilise the pent-up frustrations of his population to mount an epic challenge to this order. Repeating what Europeans had done across the globe over the previous three centuries, Germany would carve out its own imperial hinterland; by one last great land grab in the East it would create the self-sufficient basis both for domestic affluence and the platform necessary to prevail in the coming superpower competition with the United States.... The aggression of Hitler’s regime can thus be rationalised as an intelligible response to the tensions stirred up by the uneven development of global capitalism, tensions that are of course still with us today.”"

    Hitler had an obscure second book where he discusses how to close the gap with usa.

    any thoughts?

    also what are the documented sources of inspiration for hitler/nazi racial world view?

    how did allies japan and Italy fit in and the place envisioned for them? the place of the british empire?
    for occupied countries?
    Last edited by YoungIndia; 27 Jan 15, at 22:24. Reason: additions

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by YoungIndia View Post
    also what are the documented sources of inspiration for hitler/nazi racial world view
    Quite a while back, I read a book called "The Aryan Myth: A History of Racist and Nationalistic Ideas In Europe", by a Léon Poliakov (I think I still have it somewhere), and, interestingly, a lot of these "superior Aryan race" ideas came from the English and the French (not necessarily in that order); notable proponents of the "superior Aryan race" theory include Arthur de Gobineau (French), and Houston Stewart Chamberlain (English). Alfred Rosenberg, Hitlers first "idealogue", came up with a mish-mash of the Aryan myth, anti-semitism, and pseudo-scientific theory that Hitler used to justify the superiority of the "Aryan race", and promote the Blut und Boden (Blood and Soil) ideology.
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  3. #3
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Let the motherfreak tell you in his own words

    google Mein Kampf
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 28 Jan 15, at 05:31.
    Chimo

  4. #4
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,561
    Note: Do not click if you are in Germany, Russia or Turkey.

  5. #5
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,275
    The Germans had been waging colonial wars that saw them waxing and waning for centuries. National Socialism was just the latest re-iteration of an old animosity. There was a reason Hitler had himself portrayed a Teutonic war leader and had the war portrayed as just the latest crusade against the slavs (Wendish, Livonian). Ditto as regards antisemitism, which had been part and parcel of German culture for centuries. Hitler took both and made them more extreme, aided in his endeavors by a fear of communism but it was low hanging fruit.

  6. #6
    Regular
    Join Date
    17 Sep 08
    Posts
    53
    notable proponents of the "superior Aryan race" theory include Arthur de Gobineau (French), and Houston Stewart Chamberlain (English)
    yeah I know them right from the time I read shirer's rise and fall.

    I wanted to collate all the sources that may have inspired hitler and rosenburg

    "google Mein Kampf "
    ah! that was torture

    Did read it or tried to, a decade ago...covered it only in parts.. there was only so much you can take!

    I am looking for updated research in the last decade basically

  7. #7
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    09 Oct 10
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by YoungIndia View Post
    also what are the documented sources of inspiration for hitler/nazi racial world view?
    I always thought that Social Darwinism played a key role in providing alleged scientific grounding in Nazi racism.
    Social Darwinism is a modern name given to various theories of society that emerged in the United Kingdom, the United States,[1] and Western Europe in the 1870s, and which are claimed to have applied biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology and politics.[2][3] Social Darwinists generally argue that the strong should see their wealth and power increase while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease. Different social Darwinists have different views about which groups of people are the strong and the weak, and they also hold different opinions about the precise mechanism that should be used to promote strength and punish weakness. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism, while others motivated ideas of eugenics, racism, imperialism,[4] fascism, Nazism, and struggle between national or racial groups.
    Social Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The movement gained significant popularity in the biological community in the late 19th, early 20th centuries. The supposed superiority of western races fit into a popular western narrative that predated Darwin's work, then "supported" by a significant number of respected biologists and academics, who derived their interpretations (incorrectly) from the most fundamental unifying theory in biology, and arguably the most important book ever written, The Origin of species. Therefore, Social Darwinism was an attractive proposition with significant academic support that made it all the more alluring, and the clear fallacies were not so easily spotted in the context of the era.

    Social darwinism took hold across a western world that already included racism in its moral framework. Eugenics a "logical" solution to many of society's "problems", programs were active on a massive scale in the US, predating Nazi ones. Nazi Germany escalated dramatically the measures taken during the war, with a core anti-Semitic element (with political motivations and cultural/historical origins) as a more defined Nazi stamp.

    Darwin's work and separately the discovery of genetics profoundly altered our understanding of human biology. There is no end to the causal effects this has had on all subsequent human history. One question is at what stage does the connection of a cause and effect become strong enough that it warrants special attention in research and in the partial or full explanation of a particular event. Social Darwinism, and the discovery of genetic inheritance greatly aided racists in developing a more elaborate ideology, but suck a outlook has never depended on evidence or the manipulation of truth, we are inherently racist on a biological level, and it requires a combination of the development of a moral framework that opposes racism and mindfulness of some of our basic nasty tendencies to keep it restrained.

    Firming up the matter, to what extent did Nazi Germany derive inspiration from Social Darwinism, and the eugenics programs. I opened the post with "always thought" as it has been a popular notion supported by some scholars (and previously held by me)that the influence was significant, but I believe that careful analysis subsequently by certain scholars of the evidence indicate that the direct influence was very weak in regard to Social Darwinism, although eugenics programs elsewhere certainly helped the Nazis develop supporting ideologies and methodologies for developing their form of racism.

    In order to sustain the thesis that Hitler was a Darwinian one would have to ignore all the explicit statements of Hitler rejecting any theory like Darwin’s and draw fanciful implications from vague words, errant phrases, and ambiguous sentences, neglecting altogether more straight-forward, contextual interpretations of such utterances. Only the ideologically blinded would still try to sustain the thesis in the face of the contrary, manifest evidence. Yet, as I suggested at the beginning of this essay, there is an obvious sense in which my own claims must be moot. Even if Hitler could recite the Origin of Species by heart and referred to Darwin as his scientific hero, that would not have the slightest bearing on the validity of Darwinian theory or the moral standing of its author. The only reasonable answer to the question that gives this essay its title is a very loud and unequivocal No!
    http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/artic...0Darwinian.pdf

    see full article for such a careful analysis

    But despite all this, I cannot overlook the cause and effect that certain revolutions in biology had in shaping the inevitable further development of racist ideology in the western world, which climaxed in Nazi Germany in its own particular format. This post is designed to weaken the myth that the connection was strong between Nazi Germany and Social Darwinism, that many of the similarities are in fact superficial or coincidental, predating Darwin and are stronger only with the absence of a more detailed analysis of Nazi ideology and the cherry picking of certain quotes and the alignment of specific fragmented elements of the respective ideologies (see article). The belief that certain groups are better than others has always been around, Darwin's concept of the survival of the fittest initially gave a new lease of life to such a racial outlook. I think that such a lease connects strongly to western eugenics programs inspired by Social Darwinism, perhaps the study of such programs by Nazi ideologues was the most significant influence in Germany from this particular source of explanation, particular, as the specific underlying ideology of Social Darwinism that in turn influenced most eugenic programs, were ultimately rejected by the Nazis.

    While I haven't accounted for much of the
    documented sources of inspiration for hitler/nazi racial world view
    , hopefully I have reduced the number of places to search.
    Last edited by tantalus; 28 Jan 15, at 21:16.

  8. #8
    New Member
    Join Date
    30 Jan 15
    Location
    Texan Free State
    Posts
    9
    how did allies japan and Italy fit in and the place envisioned for them? the place of the british empire?
    for occupied countries?
    Well I can say that Japan and Italy signed what was known as the Anti-Comintern Pact or Tripartite Pact. Hitler saw the USSR as his ideological enemy (why, I'm not sure, as Soviet Socialism and German National Socialism are very similar in many respects), and did not see the Japanese as a threat to the German sphere of influence. Germany actually was very buddy-buddy with Nationalist China at the time and had a strong trade agreement with them. It was the Sino-Japanese War that forced him to choose one or the other, but whichever one showed themselves to be the stronger he envisioned being Germany's eventual ally against the Soviets.

    The Japanese and Soviets actually clashed in a few skirmishes along the border in 1939/40 (don't remember which), and unfortunately for Hitler, mutually agreed that they didn't want to start a front in Manchuria/Siberia.

  9. #9
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    09 Oct 10
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by MilkToast View Post
    The Japanese and Soviets actually clashed in a few skirmishes along the border in 1939/40 (don't remember which), and unfortunately for Hitler, mutually agreed that they didn't want to start a front in Manchuria/Siberia.
    Definitely unfortunate for the Germans.

    Battle of Khalkhin Gol. Battles of Khalkhin Gol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, but it was more than just a skirmish. The IJA suffered a crushing defeat, some sources indicate Japanese casualties in excess of 45,000, but data is very limited.

  10. #10
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    Definitely unfortunate for the Germans.

    Battle of Khalkhin Gol. Battles of Khalkhin Gol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, but it was more than just a skirmish. The IJA suffered a crushing defeat, some sources indicate Japanese casualties in excess of 45,000, but data is very limited.
    Very fortunate for the Germans. The Japanese would have been knocked out of the war five years sooner, releasing the entire might of the USN and the British Empire. Not to mention that Stalin now had access to entire Chinese and Korean armies as well as an entire Penal Japanese army.
    Chimo

  11. #11
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    09 Oct 10
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Very fortunate for the Germans. The Japanese would have been knocked out of the war five years sooner, releasing the entire might of the USN and the British Empire. Not to mention that Stalin now had access to entire Chinese and Korean armies as well as an entire Penal Japanese army.
    Hmmm, either way it requires a lot of speculation and what ifs...

    It took the US 4 years to defeat Imperial Japan, I know it was a naval campaign and the starting point was different, but based on the purges, and how events actually transpired in the eastern front, it seems the soviet war machine was ill prepared early in the war. Without japanese involvement in the pacific, america may have entered the war at a later date, land lease, important for the soviets may have come too late, key re-deployments of troops to european front and the additional troops required to defeat the IJA could have tipped the balance for the Germans.

    The margins were small on the eastern front, with later US involvement, and an increased material advantage to the germans, perhaps the outcome would have been different.

  12. #12
    New Member
    Join Date
    30 Jan 15
    Location
    Texan Free State
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Very fortunate for the Germans. The Japanese would have been knocked out of the war five years sooner, releasing the entire might of the USN and the British Empire. Not to mention that Stalin now had access to entire Chinese and Korean armies as well as an entire Penal Japanese army.
    Would the US have joined the war in '41 if Japan was fighting the Soviets in Siberia? The Japanese would have had a lot of resources sucked into the Siberian conflict, and would likely not have had the manpower to expand forcefully into SE Asia in the way that they did. In addition, as bad as the infrastructure was in the western USSR, it was non-existent in the east. Japan was right next door, and could conceivably have pushed very far into Siberia before the Russians could have stopped them, especially with Germany knocking on the door of Moscow.

    USSR surrenders in '42, Japan no longer needs American oil thanks to sudden access to the Caspian sea fields, Pearl Harbor never happens.

  13. #13
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by tantalus View Post
    Hmmm, either way it requires a lot of speculation and what ifs...
    Without Korea and China, more specifically, Manchuria, the Imperial Japanese Empire ceases to exist.
    Chimo

  14. #14
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by MilkToast View Post
    Would the US have joined the war in '41 if Japan was fighting the Soviets in Siberia?
    1st off, it was the Japanese who begged for mercy with the Soviets in 39. So, the causes leading to Pearl Harbor remained in effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by MilkToast View Post
    The Japanese would have had a lot of resources sucked into the Siberian conflict, and would likely not have had the manpower to expand forcefully into SE Asia in the way that they did.
    The manpower sinkhole was China, tying up 75% of the entire IJA. That was NOT going to change.

    Quote Originally Posted by MilkToast View Post
    In addition, as bad as the infrastructure was in the western USSR, it was non-existent in the east. Japan was right next door, and could conceivably have pushed very far into Siberia before the Russians could have stopped them, especially with Germany knocking on the door of Moscow.
    I don't know where you got your info. 45 Soviet divisions remained in Siberia throughout the war. The Soviets needed another 22 divisions to do AUGUST STORM. Vladivostok was a vital LL port, meaning the trans-Siberian railline was fully in operations and the Soviets only needed 90 days to transport the 22 extra divisions and all their equipment.

    Quote Originally Posted by MilkToast View Post
    USSR surrenders in '42, Japan no longer needs American oil thanks to sudden access to the Caspian sea fields, Pearl Harbor never happens.
    Japan would have had zero effect in forcing a Soviet surrender and in deed, would be chewed up before that happenned. Stalin might agree to a peace with Hitler but noway in hell would he surrender to an Asiatic.
    Chimo

  15. #15
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Actually, let's be accuarate.

    THERE WAS NO WAY IN HELL THAT HITLER COULD HAVE GOTTEN PASSED THE URALS!

    This meant that Stalin remained in the war, bringing forth every army he could, historically, he had more than enough armies and weapons to spare since all his weapons production was east of the Urals.

    THE JAPANESE WAS COMPLETE AMATEURS!

    They were beaten hands down in 30/40 and 87 Soviet divisions destroyed the Imperial Japanese Empire inside of 4 weeks.

    You two seriously expect me to believe that Tojo had a chance in hell against Stalin?
    Chimo

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What is the point of the Marines?
    By Tarek Morgen in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 02 Jul 11,, 09:19
  2. Why We Should Get Rid of West Point
    By astralis in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 15 May 09,, 18:38
  3. What's the point of the F-35??
    By The_Burning_Kid in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06 Jan 06,, 18:53

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •